Prerequisites for the Safe Use of AI Instruments by Judges
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing use of AI technologies by judges for consideration and resolution of cases is inevitable. This transformation is evident in various judicial proceedings and is closely linked to the pressing issue of integrating artificial intelligence into the activities of courts. This article examines the training of judges in the safe use of AI tools. The term “safe use” reflects a cautiously positive approach to new technologies, achieved through raising awareness of artificial intelligence and mastering the skills required for providing automated task performance, while adhering to principles and following recommendations. The study considers AI tools for judiciary as modern technologies and systems that enable judges and other legal practitioners to achieve results that previously required human thought processes. The author gives examples of tasks and functions in the legal area that can be automated to meet specific needs. Additionally, he addresses common misconceptions about artificial intelligence and introduces principles from Draft UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals aimed at minimizing associated risks. The study also highlights recent guidelines from the judiciary officials of Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, which contain useful suggestions aligned with ethical principles of AI and main ideas of justice. The article focuses on the importance of the prerequisites for the safe use in light of the emergence of GenAI chatbots. These chatbots operate based on user’s prompts and are extensively used across various areas and professions, including the area of law and judges. The study’s findings could be used as supplementary materials to develop recommendations for Ukrainian judges, with the intention of making further amendments to the Code of Judicial Ethics. Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI tools, artificial intelligence in judiciary, use of artificial intelligence by judges, Code of Judicial Ethics, AI hallucination, ChatGPT, AI systems
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it